A loyal MR reader asks:
Is authoritarianism excusable or permissible – for any length of time – if it is justified by a need for economic growth/reform (e.g. Lee Kwan Yew, Pinochet, Park Chung Hee)?
"Compared to what" is the first question. At the margin, individuals favoring democratization did the right thing in opposing those dictators. More democratic versions of those regimes would have been better. That said, I don’t think absolute majoritarian democracy in Singapore, from day one, would have been better than the reign of Lee. It would have led to ethnic voting and the quick end of democracy, in destabilizing fashion. Yet now Singapore, a successful and well-established country, can and should become more democratic. When it comes to Pinochet, we should condemn part of the regime and praise some of the parts concerning economic policy. Viewing Pinochet purely as an individual moral agent, he was quite wrong to act the way he did. If you ask "would I be willing to endanger the good economic reforms by eschewing torture to enforce the rule of the regime," the answer is yes I would want to immediately end the torture and take that risk.
#43 in a series of 50.
When recounting the actions of Pinochet, it is also important to take into account the climate in Chile when he came into power. Salvador Allende had nationalized the Copper mines, was in the process of nationalizing all farm land over certain acreage, and had established groups of leftist thugs to discourage protest of the Regime. The Chilean House of Deputies had passed a resolution calling for his removal from power, by force if necessary. That resolution went on to the Senate, where it was very narrowly defeated. At the same time, the Chilean Supreme Court was also calling for his removal based on his unwillingness to enforce thousands of judicial rulings. The fear was that Allende was fashioning himself as a South American version of Fidel Castro at the expense of the country. Even if Pinochet had simply pillaged the country for his own benefit, at least part of the blame would have to be placed on the shoulders of Allende for taking advantage of his the position he had been elected to fill.
I don’t know that the average Chilean would have preferred Pinochet over Allende had they known what was in store for the country, but the fact is that when given the choice of a tyrannical dictator whose actions were going to destroy the economy, or a tyrannical dictator who would promote economic prosperity, I would choose the latter any day.
“In order to get an omelette, you have to break some eggs” may be a morally reprehensible sentiment, but at least the authoritarian semi-capitalists delivered the freakin’ omelette.
At the end of the day, however much you hate Pinochet (and you are entitled to plenty of hate there), you’d better have more saved up for Castro.
@adrian:
“I don’t know that the average Chilean would have preferred Pinochet over Allende had they known what was in store for the country, but the fact is that when given the choice of a tyrannical dictator whose actions were going to destroy the economy, or a tyrannical dictator who would promote economic prosperity, I would choose the latter any day.”
First all, the average agent in a real economy doesn’t exist: it’s a statistical construct. Let’s say that
there are two groups: the poor lower 50% and the rich upper 50%. I would say that the Lower 50% would be
better off living in a Cuba-like Chili (no extreme poverty, hunger or lack of basic health care), but the Upper
50% is much better off under Pinochet, since there are no SUV’s in Cuba.
If we say that Pinochet’s regime was about as authoritarian and brutal as Castro’s, what society would be
considered the best off? I can’t say, honestly.
Ah sorry about that, visually straining lay-out got to me.
A Nigerian friend of mine told me a different version of the “crack some eggs” proverb (which seems to be more appropriate for this topic): “He whose head is used to open the coconut does not get to participate in the eating.”
In all seriousness, I find Tyler’s argument a bit misspecified. Democracy is not simply a matter of having elections. You cannot have a free and fair vote without guarantees of fundamental rights and the rule of law. The fulfillment of these prerequisites generates a positive spillover for market-driven growth.
Democracy is too new. Even the U.S. was wealthy by contemporary standards when it formed a democracy. A more interesting question is, would you prefer to live under an authoritarian regime that respected individual rights or a democracy that did not?
Matt, would you prefer to live under a capitalist regime with extreme poverty or a communist regime with a high standard of living?
This is meant as a joke.
That got all jacked up…
there should have been quotation marks around paragraph 1, and the last two paragraphs got shoved together. There should have additional quotation marks around P4
“I would say that the Lower 50% would be
better off living in a Cuba-like Chili (no extreme poverty, hunger or lack of basic health care), but the Upper
50% is much better off under Pinochet”
Of course, given the difference in economic growth, the first clause will at some point cease to be true. It’s then a matter of discount rate.
In case anyone has forgotten, last time I checked the only people who do well in a communist country are the rulers and assorted cronies. The poor are just as poor, if not more so, than they would be in a free and market based country. The only difference is that a few of the poor may be relatively more skilled at making connections and get some power and wealth in a communist regime. However I wager that the great bulk of people (poor and rich) have more chances for a good life in a free market.
Well, its true that the United States hasn’t been held in high esteem for a while…but the causes for the lack of esteem have all been based on specific events within each country based on your interventions there. Eastern Europe generally holds you in high esteem based on your actions there. In Africa you have a decent reputation as you haven’t been as involved in the traumas of that continent relative to other colonial powers.
In Latin America however, you have a long history of interfering in their affairs and of supporting autocrats and torturers, as opposed to reformers. This has not helped your reputation. This legacy cannot be brushed aside by saying fatalistically that you were never held in high esteem.
“the Lower 50% would be better off living in a Cuba-like Chili” – give me a break. so those people in the rafts are the affluent Cubans going after SUVs?
Why do people have such a blind faith in democracy?
JSK: I couldn’t resist actually running the numbers. Income inequality is conventionally measured by Gini coefficient, which ranges from 0 (all persons have the same income) to 1 (one person has all the income, everyone else has none).
Chili’s Gini coefficient is 0.57, which places it among the most unequal countries on the planet. There are no internationally accepted statistics on Cuban inequality, but there are some claims floating around the internet that it’s Gini coefficient is 0.22. If true, that would make it the most equal country on the planet.
If you accept those numbers, and my previously cited figures for GDP per capita, and assume a power-law income distribution in each country (a standard and usually reasonable approximation), you’ll find that the average income of a person in the bottom half of Cuban society is $1300/year, while the average income of a person in the bottom half of Chillean society is $2200/year. So the average other-half Chilliean is still nearly twice as rich as the average other-half Cuban.
If you look for the percentile below which the mean incomes in both countries are equal, you’ll find it’s about 22%. So basically the bottom quintile of Cubans and Chilleans are about equally well off. (Yes, that would also mean I was off in my last post, when I guestimated that you would have to go down to the lowest 5-10% to find the crossing point.) Coincidentally, the bottom quintile is also one common definition of “the poor”. By that definition, then, Chile’s and Cuba’s poor are about equally well-off. The difference is that Chile has allowed the other 80% of the population to get substantially richer, while Cuba hasn’t.
By the way, if you compare the U.S. (GDP/head ~$42K; Gini ~0.4) and western Europe (GDP/head ~$30K; Gini ~0.3), the contrast is less stark, but the basic phenomenon is the same. The poor are about equally well-off in both places. The difference is that the rest of the population (and yes, in particular the top quintile) are much richer in the U.S. than in Europe.
Russia is a great and ancient land, and will soon earn its rightful place among the nations.
As far as Chilean inequality is concerned, it is helpful to consider that Latin America as a whole has some of the highest inequality measures in the world. A quick check on the CIA World Factbook reveals that Chile has a lower Gini coefficient than Mexico, Brazil, Bolivia and Paraguay. Most countries in this region seem to have Gini coefficients floating between .45 and .6 so Chile is quite normal as far as inequality is concerned.
matt – i forgot my conclusion – i think the racist period will pass, it’s just a transitional blip. ‘Nationalist horseplay’, if you will.
Perhaps. You’re right actually, casual racism is very common among educated Russians, which is quite unusual by global standards. A Russian business Professor I was talking to last summer referred to Chechens as ‘rats’.
The purpose of government is good governance. Liberal democracy has the best association with good governance because it is accountable to the people. That is why it is preferred; it is not an end to itself. If an authoritarian leader can give better governance, then he might be preferred. However, the longer he is in power the more likely the level of good governance will decline. Even if he is not corrupt personally, those around him will become so. It is worth noting that Pinochet’s reputation in Chile took a nosedive once it was revealed he was wealthier than expected. It is important not to fetishize aspects of liberal democracy, or we have situations of things looking good on paper yet he government is unable to govern. Liberal democracy is not just elections and free press; it is the rule of law, peaceful order, and a culture that approves of consensus.
The likely alternatives must be judged when stating whether to approve of someone like Lee Kuan Yew, Pinochet, or Putin. Given the sketchy stuff Allende was doing, Pinochet may have been the better option, but it is still appropriate to criticize him. Yew is an easier judgment – he provided extremely effective government. Someone like Marcos is also an easier judgment – it is likely someone else could have provided better government yet still kept the communists at bay.
Putin is harder to judge because we do not have enough perspective or time to evaluate his results. Restoring some order in Russia was certainly was good. But the chaos had less to do with “democracy” in general than Yeltsin’s poor leadership style (probably due to his alcholism). I see very little good that Putin has done that could not have been done if he had still adhered to democratic norms. Appointing regional governors instead of allowing elections is not necessary to hold together the Russian state. It only enforces his own political power at the expense of Russia not developing a solid backbench of capable leaders. Stealing successful private companies in order to consolidate state power will also lead to trouble in the future.
Putin is sacrificing long term stability for current personal power. If Russia lived next to moribund or senile powers like the late Manchu China, it could probably do well in its current trajectory. But Russia’s neighbors are more dynamic now and could position themselves well to prey upon it. There is a long list of things that Putin’s Russia should have done – reformed its military, improved its medical infrastructure, reduced corruption, and reverse demographic decline – but it hasn’t. Instead it’s harassing private oil companies, destroying legitimate opposition, and murdering journalists who expose the truth. Wrong priorities.
I don’t think a nation that has severe demographic decline, a worrying TB epidemic, a collapsed military, and a future leadership of cronies will take its rightful place in the world. There is a huge rot there, and Putin has not addressed it.
I think it’s a slightly different situation in the middle east since the run of the mill dictators are already at a pretty low level. I discuss it a bit on my blog. http://www.isaharr.com
Isaac
Comments on this entry are closed.